Honoring President John F. Kennedy

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, today the Senate took an unusual step to change our rules with a simple majority vote. I say unusual step, and not unprecedented, because it was something the Senate has done on many occasions in the past. Like those previous changes, the action we took was not intended to destroy the uniqueness of the Senate but instead was meant to restore the regular order of the body.

I believe, as I have stated many times since coming to the Senate, that the best way to amend the rules is by having an open debate at the beginning of each new Congress and holding a majority vote to adopt the rules for that Congress. I, along with Senators Harkin and Merkley, tried to do that at the beginning of this Congress and the last. Ultimately we were unsuccessful in achieving the real reforms we wanted, including a talking filibuster. But there was some hope that the debate highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules and led to an agreement that both sides would strive to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately, that agreement rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned.

As expected, many of my Republican colleagues called today's action by the majority a power grab and ``tyranny of the majority.'' They decried the lack of respect for minority rights. I do believe that we must respect the minority in the Senate, but that respect must go both ways. When the minority uses their rights to offer germane amendments, or to extend legitimate debate, we should always respect such efforts. But that is not what we have seen. Instead, the minority often uses its rights to score political points and obstruct almost all Senate action. Instead of offering amendments to improve legislation, we see amendments that have the sole purpose of becoming talking points in next year's election. Instead of allowing up or down votes on qualified nominees, we see complete obstruction to key vacancies. It is hard to argue that the majority is not respecting the traditions of the Senate when the minority is using this body purely for political gain.

During the debate over rules reform we had in January, many of my colleagues argued that the only way to change the Senate Rules was with a two-thirds supermajority. As we saw today, that simply is not true. Some call what occurred the ``Constitutional Option,'' while others call it the ``Nuclear Option.'' I think the best name for it might be the ``Majority Option.'' As I studied this issue in great depth, one thing became very clear. Senator Robert Byrd may have said it best. During a debate on the floor in 1975, Senator Byrd said, ``at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are determined to change the rule ..... and if the leadership of the Senate joins them ..... that rule will be changed.'' That is what happened today.

We keep hearing that any use of this option to change the rules is an abuse of power by the majority. However, a 2005 Republican Policy Committee memo provides some excellent points to rebut this argument.

Let me read part of the 2005 Republican memo:

``This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules after the constitutional option had been threatened, beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a longstanding feature of Senate practice.

The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order. But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has played an ongoing and important role.''

The memo goes on address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option.''

One misunderstanding addressed, which we heard today is that, ``The essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised.''

The memo rebuts this by stating that ``When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed, many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with which it is presented.''

Changing the rules with a simple majority is not about exercising power, but is instead about restoring balance. There is a fine line between respecting minority rights and yielding to minority rule. When we cross that line, as I believe we have many times in recent years, the majority is within its rights to restore the balance. This is not tyranny by the majority, but merely holding the minority accountable if it crosses that line and makes the Senate a dysfunctional body. I would expect the same if my party was in the minority and we were abusing the rules.

Many of my colleagues argue that the Senate's supermajority requirements are what make it unique from the House of Representatives, as well as any other legislative body in the world. I disagree. If you talk to the veteran Senators, many of them will tell you that the need for 60 votes to pass anything or confirm nominees is a recent phenomenon. Senator Harkin discussed this in great detail during our debate in January and I highly recommend reading his statement.

I think this gets at the heart of the problem. We are a unique legislative body, but not because of our rule book. We have recently devolved into a body that our Founders never intended. Rather than one based on mutual respect that moves by consent and allows majority votes on almost all matters, we have become a supermajoritarian institution that often does not move at all.

With all of the economic issues we face, our country cannot afford a broken Senate. Both sides need to take a step back and understand that what we do on the Senate floor is not about winning or keeping the majority next November, but about helping the country today.

Today's vote to change the rules is a victory for all Americans who want to end obstruction and return to a government that works for them. Americans sent us here to get things done, but in recent years, the minority has filibustered again and again--not to slow action out of substantive concerns, but for political gain. Any President--Democrat or Republican--should be able to make their necessary appointments.

This change finally returns the Senate to the majority rule standard that is required by the Constitution when it comes to executive branch and judicial nominees. With this change, if those nominees are qualified, they get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. If a majority is opposed, they can reject a nominee. But a minority should not be able to delay them indefinitely. That is how our democracy is intended to work.

New Mexicans--all Americans--are tired of the gridlock in Washington. The recent filibuster of three DC Circuit nominees over the last 4 weeks was not the beginning of this obstruction. It was the final straw in a long history of blocking the President's nominees. Doing nothing was no longer an option. It was time to rein in the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, and I am relieved the Senate took action today.

Source